Besides fighting insurgents in Iraq and 'crushing' the Taliban in Alfganistan is there a clear definition of the 'War on Terrror'? We are at war as a nation against terror? What does that really mean? Are we fighting other nations? Is there a list that identifies and defines who are the terrorists of the world? What is a terrorist? How is the military supposed to fight these terrorists? Is it all terrorists in every nation? Is it only terrorists who are fighting America? How do we know who is a terrorist and which ones are fighting America? Is it someone who is attacking our government or harming our citizens? I would like to hear opinions on this, because I haven't heard a clear definition of how long this war is going to last, what is its scope and how are we going to end it.
Technically, we aren't at war. Congress never declared it. Seems to be out of fashion to follow the Constitution, and that goes back to Truman. Keep D&D Civil.
I know what it should be. But sadly the reality of it is that it is an excuse for this President to try seize unconstitutional power and act without having to be held accountable.
"Terror" is a method or a tactic in achieving a desired result. You can't have a war on a tactic. You have to use coordinated intelligence and police and law enforcement to have success.
Does anyone else see how dangerous it is to have this open ended and in the power of the executive branch of the government. And does Homeland Security mean we are also 'fighting' this 'war' here on our own soil? I think this is regrettable that we have framed our actions in Iraq as the so called 'War on Terror' And what is with all this talk about dealing with terrorists outside of the rules of the Geneva Convention? Why is Congress sitting by and letting us commit troops to a war they have not declared or defined?
I hear you rhester. Iran and N. Korea were listed as in the "Axis of Evil" yet we simply go through UN channels to try to politic a solution with them. Yet that wasn't a viable option for Iraq? Hmmm. How do you politic your way dealing with Iran and N. Korea if you are declaring they are a subject of your "War on Terror" anyway? I thought we weren't supposed to negotiate with terrorists? 2 more years.
Terror, including assassination and killing civilians to scare opponents, is not something new. It started thousands of years ago, and it will accompany human nature forever. I don't understand how can someone wage a war on it. On what exactly? All humans?
The War on Terror is like the War on Drugs. Like the War on Incompetence. Oh, wait, we have to wait a few years for that. Anyway, yeah, Just say "No" to Terror!
Literally speaking "war on terrorists" probably makes more sense than "war on terror". You can't wage war on a tactic although you can counteract and prevent it. So to be super-pedantic, we should say we are waging a "war on the terrorists" in order to "counteract and prevent terrorism".
my favorite part is how they looped Iraq, who had NOTHING to do with Al-Qaeda, into the "war on terror"
Well, most Americans aren't buying it, they still see it as a 'separate' issue, so their efforts to brainwash the public into thinking otherwise have -- for the most part -- failed.
"If they do it, it's terrorism, if we do it, it's fighting for freedom." Anthony Quainton -- U.S. Ambassador to Nicaragua -- in an off the record response to a group of concerned U.S. citizens when asked to explain the difference between U.S. government actions in Nicaragua and the violence it condemns as terrorism elsewhere in the world.
